Genre-colored glasses
Thoughts on genre, language, grammar, and other
rhetorical and linguistic norms
rhetorical and linguistic norms
 Photo by Amy Devitt In my last post, I wrote about the power of pronouns and especially the power of “we” to include some people and exclude others. Today, I’m exploring the pronoun “they” and its power to separate as well as gather. That’s what pronouns do. As I wrote in the last post, prompted by a column by Leonard Pitts, Jr. Pronouns reveal the unconscious nature of our language, words we human beings use automatically without struggling to choose just the right word. But sometimes we who care about being aware should choose those pronouns more deliberately. It may take someone else pointing out when we are using pronouns to exclude without awareness. And we definitely need those like Pitts to call out others using pronouns to exclude through prejudice. Connie Schultz called out the current president for referring to Puerto Ricans as “they,” and she explains how it reveals his racism and his unwillingness to include Puerto Ricans as Americans. It reveals, in my terms, his unwillingness to include Puerto Ricans as “we.” Donald Trump is dumping again on Puerto Rico, which was devastated by Hurricane Maria in 2017 and remains in dire need of help that has never come. “I’ve taken better care of Puerto Rico than any man ever,” Trump said last week. “They’ve got to spend the money wisely. They don’t know how to spend the money.” Of course we English-speaking human beings need pronouns like “we” and “they” in our language to refer to groups, but people give pronouns added power by using pronouns to separate “us” from “them,” the insiders from the outsiders, the right-thinkers from the wrong-thinkers. Americans from non-Americans. Notice how different his statement would have been if he had included Puerto Ricans as “us” “We’ve got to spend our money wisely in Puerto Rico.” It might still have been just as wrong-headed a statement about the problems in Puerto Rico (as Schultz points out, Puerto Rico has received only about a quarter of the money allocated since the devastation of Hurricane Maria in 2017). But it would have been a statement about “our” problems and “our” actions, not some other “they” who don’t know how to spend the money “we” so generously give them. Just like “we,” everyone uses “they” to refer to groups, but some “they”s mean more than others. Think about all the times you’ve heard or read someone describe some other group of people about whom they disapprove. It’s always about a “they” “They” don’t know how to spend money Well, some of them don't, are, and must be--maybe. But some of the individuals those statements lump together? Nope You probably noticed that I lumped together some obviously prejudiced, racist, sexist, homophobic, political “they” statements with some seemingly less charged. I’m guessing you thought of “these kids today” (said in a growly low codger voice) spending all their time on their phones. Those “they” statements, too, lump together individuals who behave quite differently, who have different motivations and backgrounds, who are minimized by being separated out as “they.” Every time people use “they” it creates a group who is not “me” or “you.” There’s a reason “they” is called a third-person pronoun. Not the center of the universe, the first person who matters, “I.” Not the people I know and recognize and speak to, the second person in the room, “you.” But the people outside this room, people being talked about by “me” and “you.” [Don’t get me started on other possible uses of “you,” especially as in “you people,” as a speaker recently referred to my colleagues and me. That’s just talking about “them” but to their faces, as people at the receiving end of discrimination all their lives know far better than I do.] Sometimes “they” refers to a well-defined and specific group. Sometimes it’s more insidious. It’s one thing to say about my friends’ children, “They treated her very well on Mother’s Day,” another to say, “Children treat their parents so well. They are such a blessing.” Well, some are, some aren’t. It’s one thing to say about Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, and other parents who bought their children’s way into preferred universities, “They are cheating.” It’s another thing to say, “Wealthy people—They think they are above the law.” I imagine some do, some don’t. Even when people are clearly referring to a category to which they don’t belong—as, say, my talking about rich people—the very act of creating a “they” is potentially harmful, a lumping together of individuals that we language-users need to be more aware of. Who do we think of as “they”? Who doesn’t belong to “us”? Notice your own use of “they” for a week, or for one day. Most often I’m guessing you’ll be referring to specific people—innocent, innocuous. Occasionally, perhaps, you’ll be creating an other, a group of “them” who are not like “you” or “us.” Do you see what you’re doing there? Becoming aware of language is tough. It starts, I think, with noticing other people’s language. Check out who is “we” and “they” in letters to the editor, political tweets, mission statements, office hallway conversations. Maybe then notice your own work or family conversations. Can you name the individuals you’re talking about, and are you saying something true about those individuals? Or are you getting glimpses into your own categories, your own ways of grouping people who are not like you? That’s what pronouns do. That’s what we all do, whether we notice it or not. Let’s become an “us,” people who notice our “we”s and “they”s, who notice how others separate others from themselves. Maybe we even start to call out some of “them” who are using “they” and “we” insidiously. Do you see what we could do there?  WE by John Hain, Pixabay license
4 Comments
 Image by Karolina Grabowska from Pixabay The Power of PronounsWho is your “we”? Whenever you say or write the word “we,” who do you mean? Your family? Your colleagues? Your friends? Fellow fans of a team, sport, hobby, avocation, activity? Right-thinking allies? “We” have a family reunion every year. “We” raised $4,000 for the public library last quarter. “We” are working to recruit new students to our program. “We” root for the Royals (or the Jayhawks, or the Texas Tech Raiders). “We” (by which I mean human beings) define ourselves in part through our communities, our groups—and our pronouns. We show who we think we belong with through who we include in “we” “us” “our” Who are your “we”s? “We” (by which I mean human beings again) also define ourselves in part through who we do NOT include in our “we.” “We” may live in a red state, but at least “we” defeated Kris Kobach for governor. “We [right-thinking people (joke intended), aka Democrats, progressives, and moderates] defeated Kobach” Or “we haven’t fully assimilated African-American citizens.” The last “we” comes from Patrick Buchanan by way of a column from the observant Leonard Pitts, Jr. “Who is we?” Pitts asks. “When Buchanan says “we,” he does mean America. But when he says “America,” he means white people.” Even as Buchanan states that African-Americans helped build this country, he simultaneously excludes them: “we” have not yet assimilated “them.” “We” must mean white people. The definition of who is included as “Americans” matters in whether “we” Americans will continue as a united nation or fail in the ideals on which the country is founded. “If America fails,” Pitts writes, “…it will be because he [Buchanan] and people like him still arrogantly arrogate unto themselves, as if handed down from the very hand of God, the right to determine who “we” is. “We” includes and excludes simultaneously. It is possible—maybe even likely—that Buchanan is not aware of how his use of “we” excludes African-Americans. He simply arrogantly assumes the whiteness of America. It’s that very lack of awareness about the effects of our words that I fight against. I’ve written before about how pronouns send subtle messages, as the use of “we” and “you” did in the Inaugural address. While Pitts’ column (or mine) is unlikely to change Pat Buchanan’s perspective, “we” who care about inclusion and fairness and becoming aware of our own biases can do better. We can start noticing who our “we” is and who “we” is not. And we can deliberately include more people as “us” Try for one day noticing who you refer to with those pronouns that include you. It’s hard to notice! And it may take someone else to help us spot the assumptions behind what we say. In my own “we”s I noticed some that were obvious and literal—“we [my friends and I] should try out that new microbrewery.” But I also spotted some that were more subtle and unspoken-- “We aren’t doing enough for the homeless.” When I say, “We need to do more for the homeless,” I’m excluding the homeless from “us” and presuming that “we” with homes are the ones who are capable of making change, without those who are insecure in their housing included in that process except as passive recipients of our good works and largesse. Sometimes we even use “we” to include ourselves in an idea while excluding ourselves from responsibility for acting. “We [by which I mean you, local government officials] aren’t doing enough for the homeless.” Compare that to “We, meaning the community that includes those without homes and including me, need to do more to figure out what to do.” Pronouns reveal the unconscious nature of our language, words we human beings use automatically without struggling to choose just the right word. But sometimes we who care about being aware should choose those pronouns more deliberately. It may take someone else pointing out when we are using pronouns to exclude without awareness. And we definitely need those like Pitts to call out others using pronouns to exclude through prejudice. Those like Connie Schultz in her column on calling Puerto Ricans “they” in contrast to Americans. But that’s a pronoun for another day, one you can start watching in your own language. Part Two to come: Who is your “they”?  Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay  Photo by Ann Dean for KU Endowment I found a treat in my mailbox yesterday—a copy of KU Giving magazine from KU Endowment that includes a brief article on me! It’s a short regular feature called “What’s in your Briefcase,” and, even though I don’t carry a briefcase (I call it a work bag or tote), writer Emily Cox and her team were kind enough to feature me and this blog.
Since a few new readers might check it out, I thought I’d give an orientation to what has become a full archive of posts and highlight a few that other readers have let me know they especially liked. If you’re a long-time reader, thank you! And feel free to add suggestions of what you think others might enjoy reading. What's Here I write about language and genre—the kinds of everyday reading and writing we all do and how they shape us and our worlds. A few posts explain the idea of genre, for those of you who want some overview of the idea. Check out the Psychology of Genre, one of my first posts, or Genre in two pictures, or Genre Matters (aka Using Genres to Make Hatred Normal) I’ve been writing this blog seriously since May 2016, and I wrote weekly for two years (more sporadically after that), so there’s a lot to sort through. Here are a few ways:
I’ve written more than one article on some topics, and some have told me they’ve liked those. Here are a couple of ideas. Apologies I’ve written 4 posts on good and bad apologies, starting with Harriet Lerner’s great work on what makes a good apology. It’s much easier to find examples of bad apologies, as I learned at my dentist’s office and watching public figures and businesses mess up saying “I’m sorry.” (Remember the United Airlines CEO after dragging a man off their plane? Now that was a bad apology.) I wrote on what makes a good “thank you,” too, but that turns out to be much easier for people to do. Less humiliating, I imagine, to thank someone than to admit you screwed up. Holidays I’ve written about lots of holidays over the years, from New Year’s to Christmas and all in between, including Veterans Day, Labor Day, Father’s Day, Thanksgiving, and even April Fools’ Day (where the genre requires us to lie!). I tried an audio blog for Halloween one year, if you want to hear my voice. My most recent holiday post, I think, and one I'm proud of is my post on Armistice Day And Other Matters As a teacher, I’ve written about the syllabus in a few ways, and you who are teachers or scholars might find other topics of interest (on the word "essay," "commencement"--or is it "graduation"?). Since I also write about language and why genres matter, the blog has hit on lots of ways we live in our worlds through language and communication, especially how words matter. Some serious political and social topics following current events, but also laughing with Amy Schumer's sitcom parody or playing with Super Bowl ads. But Wait, There’s More! Since it is KU's story that prompted this post and it is March Madness time, I have to highlight my post on how I watch KU men’s basketball games through both my fanaticism and my genre-colored glasses. I ran through over 20 genres that make up my own watch party crowd’s way of watching KU play in 2018. So that’s enough for now. If you'd like me to email you whenever I post something new, please feel free to sign up for my newsletter (see it in the sidebar). I hope you can find something to spark your interest or show you old habits in new ways. Thank you for reading today  leisergu, flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) I haven't posted here on my blog for a while, because . . . Too much to go into here. And I'm afraid I still can't come back for a full post. But in the meantime, I thought I'd share a few links to topics and comments I found interesting that you might like too. Hallmark Christmas Movies I don't know if I've told you that I'm a sucker for Christmas movies. (No judging) I had planned to write about the genre. But for now, here's someone on simplemost.com who wrote about how comforting and predictable the Hallmark Christmas movie genre can be. It even includes a drinking game. Meaning is More than Words Leonard Pitts wrote a recent column on obscenity, prompted by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib's use of the word "motherf*****". As he says, obscenity is more than just particular words, and actions can be obscenities, too. Images Mean More Than Words Does a picture communicate better than words? MasterCard thinks so, and they're dropping the words from their logo. Just the image. Well, just a few links and ideas for now. Could a single image convey the whole genre of Hallmark Christmas movies? I think it might. Picture the image of a beautiful couple (always white and one male and one female), one dressed in green the other in red, with the action of kissing in front of a Christmas tree with snow falling around them. That might say it all I'll be back. |
Author
|
RSS Feed